by CAA | May 15, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
15th May 2018
Well who would have thought? Crime prevention actually works. Engagement with youth also works, hallelujah!
The Community Advocacy Alliance was formed over three years ago because some crusty old time coppers thought there was a crime tsunami on the way because the Victoria Police had largely disengaged with youth and did not seem the very interested in crime prevention.
For the past three years the CAA has been producing papers and trying to lobby VicPol and the Government on the issue but were rejected by the Government and rebuffed and ridiculed by the new modern Vicpol executive and ignored by the Chief Commissioner.
Although not a mirror of the strategies that we propose, Task Force Wayward with its focused action is to be commended.
A force that has developed a central policy of being noninterventionist has every chance of losing the confidence of the community and that will make Policing very difficult.
The community is already declaring a lack of confidence in police leadership and we can only hope that the leadership will change philosophies as the confidence in the operational police at the coal face continues to wane.
But there is a glimmer of hope with Task Force Wayward which draws on strategies from a number of the Youth initiatives abandoned by VicPol but now packaged differently and more concerted.
While we are confident this task force will be successful, unfortunately the resources of VicPol do not extend to replicating this initiative across the State.
Our hope is that the Chief Commissioner will realise that Crime Prevention and Youth engagement are not relics of a past era but very effective policing tools.
We implore the Chief Commissioner to show leadership and silence the naysayers within the force command and embrace the true and basic philosophies of policing – there is a reason that they are embraced by most Police organisations in the world – they work and have done for hundreds of years. Sir Robert Peel was onto something. The nine Peelian principles of Policing make essential reading for any police member.
A modern interpretation of the principles are:
1) The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2) The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3) Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4) The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force.
5) Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6) Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7) Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police and the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8) Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9) The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
The CAA knows that changing a philosophy that was inherited is not going to be easy but the philosophy behind Operation Wayward must be adopted force wide if the community is to again have confidence in its Police Force. Noninterventionist strategies do not work and promote crime and public disorder.
by CAA | Apr 18, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
18th April 2018
Introduction
This proposal emanated from the views expressed by Victims at a recent meeting of the Victims of Crime Justice Reference Group.
The legal system in Victoria poses a number of difficulties for Victims, which can only worsen unless substantial changes are made.
Lack of fairness and equality before the law and equity in the Judicial process are but a few of the key anomalies.
This paper briefly addresses the problems and provides solutions.
As a bonus, considerable fiscal and resource savings can be made across the sector.
The problems that are easily identified:
1. Long delays in bringing offenders before the Courts adversely effecting Victims in a number of ways.
2. The accuracy of the testimony of witnesses, expected to remember detail over two or three years, impacting on the fairness of any Trial for the Victim, perpetrator and the witnesses.
3. Adverse impact on Victims, feeling shut out and penalised by the legal system, aggravating and slowing the recovery process. A common feeling amongst Victims that their victimisation is increased by the legal process.
“The accused plunges the knife in but the courts twist and turns it to an intolerable degree.”
4. Victims being confronted in Courts and the vicinity of Courts by perpetrators and their families and supporters.
5. Overcrowding in Prisons used as an excuse for legal outcomes favouring the Criminal in the failed Therapeutic Justice model which must be abandoned. The overcrowding or other interferences in the Judicial system are matters for Corrections, not the courts and interferes in the proper administration of Justice. Courts have no role in adjusting sentences on Corrections issues.
6. The burgeoning of Legal Aid, Courts, Prisons and Policing costs stretching both budgets and resources heading towards an unsustainable level.
7. Victims feeling extremely aggrieved by the Plea Bargaining Process. A prosecutor, for expedience, may, plea bargain away the core or gravity of the offence (as experienced by the Victim) leaving Victims who suffered the crime feeling empty and irrelevant. Informants and Victims must be adequately consulted, currently, this consultation is erratic in the application. Victims and Informants where consulted must not be pressured by prosecutors to acquiesce. Essentially Victims need legal representation to ensure basic legal fairness.
8. The current practices of restitution or compensation are totally ineffective and are rarely of any meaningful value to the Victim.
9. A severe lack of confidence in the judicial system and its ability to manage itself.
The abstract
Any reform within the justice system is usually subjected to significant review by the various vested interest groups, never independent of the decisions that need to be made. Even those vested interests would find it very hard to argue against a reform package that focuses on the Victims as the starting point. The vast majority of crime starts with a Victim so it is logical that any review starts from the perspective of the Victim. This document addresses the areas where Victims of crime are currently being denied real justice, compassion, and understanding. Opposing these initiatives would be seen to be anti-victim.
The proposal
These recommendations are a pragmatic approach to a major problem that is inhibiting victims to report serious crime for fear of being further victimised by the justice process. The adverse consequences for Victims continue to grow along with the current proliferation of violent crimes against the person. Government has a responsibility to the community to bring about change when required, and it is not a matter of if, but when. The trigger points for the, ‘when’, are very clear and must be addressed now as a matter of urgency.
The following changes are recommended:
I. Committals for trial Proceedings — Remove the antiquated, costly and irrelevant Committals for the Trial process. The introduction of the Police “Hand up Brief” have relegated the Committal for Trial hearings as an antiquated irrelevant duplication and in most cases unnecessary. The statistics tell the story with over 90% of Committals sending perpetrators for trial and the balance would be the matters sent directly for trial by the DPP. Cases which are not proposed to be dealt with summarily should be evaluated by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the accused person either presented for Trial, directed to be referred to the Summary Jurisdiction or discharged (as can, in fact, happen now).
In 1983, when the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was created, this was seen as a very progressive move for jurisprudence in Australia, the failing was that at the same time the Committal for the Trial process was not discontinued by the same legislation. Even an opt-in approach would make substantial savings. With the establishment and the now developed expertise of the DPP, the Committal for the Trial process has continued to further traumatise victims and delay the justice process by many months and sometimes years. Propping up this archaic process bleeding resources and achieving little is pointless. Accused people can, and sometimes do, waive committal proceedings and still get a fair trial
II. Legal support for Victims – With the abolition of the Committal for the trial process, the saving to the Legal Aid budget can be redirected to the Victims. All Victims of major crimes could have access to a legal representation to represent their interests and pursue their lawful rights, including rights to compensation or restitution. The advantage to the Legal profession is that this will generate a new specialist skill for the Legal profession with some Legal Practices specialising in Victim representation. The administration of this legal support could form part of the function of the Commissioner for Victims who could oversee and manage the process.
III. Compensation and Restitution- Currently the process for compensation and/or restitution is inconsequential for a guilty offender. It can be an annoyance to be ignored, as any Order amounts to a civil debt with no chance of recovery without the offender’s cooperation. Representation on behalf of the Victim would be to seek any compensation/restitution to be enforced as an Order of the Court. Failure to obey the Order automatically triggers enforceable action by a collection authority such as the Sheriff or the Taxation Office. Each is well set up for the long game in debt recovery and has the powers to achieve a result. There should be no reason for a perpetrator who receives a salary or a welfare benefit having a percentage of that income garnisheed. An added advantage to this approach is to remind the accused of the consequences of their crime, as a deterrent to further offending Victims must be made to feel that it is worthwhile to seek justice under the law, (That after all is supposed to be there to protect them)and that when the crime committed against them incurs a financial cost, or pain and suffering, they are adequately compensated. Their Victimisation has a dollar value and makes the perpetrator accountable in a dollar sense as well.
IV. Prison numbers- – The long delays in bringing perpetrators to Trial causes pressure on Corrections, and causes undue pressure on Courts to release accused people on bail and non-custodial sentences. This problem is highlighted in the Juvenile System where the majority of prisoners are on remand – an absolute disgrace and serious impediment for justice to Victims and justice for perpetrators.
V. Removal of the Plea Bargain- The intent of this process is laudable and reduces Court time by encouraging Guilty pleas, but the damage to Victims has been totally disregarded. The criminal not only gets a discounted sentence but also gets a free pass on any future repeat offences as the Courts can only sentence on subsequent matters as a first offence. The Plea Bargain needs to be replaced by Sentence Bargaining – a process where if the accused pleads to all offences the prosecution will only seek penalty on the negotiated offences with the Victim and the original informant. The outcome for the accused is the same except that they now have prior convictions for offences they would have had expunged, and the Victim is respected because what they have experienced has not been whitewashed away, and the perpetrator has been held to account. With nearly half of all prisoners returning to jail within two years, the practice of expunging offences and therefore artificially eliminating prior convictions through a plea bargain deal is certainly not a crime prevention initiative and may have the reverse effect by demonstrating to the perpetrator they can actually get away with crimes.
VI. Sentencing Guidelines- Despite the constant cries in defence of the wisdom of sentencing Judges and against interfering with Judicial independence, this countervailing meddling with those near-sacred institutions has an undeserved aura of academic respectability. This anomaly must be removed from our legal process. If a member of the Judiciary cannot determine a suitable and fair sentence based on the evidence presented to them, then they should remove themselves from the bench. The so-called Sentencing Guidelines have worked to become completely absurd and to actually undermine the law. They rely on the average length of sentences for similar offences, though how any court is able to determine similarity without actually conducting further inquiry by examining the evidence in each case to grade them as similar is unclear. Inevitably the tendency is to apply offence categories, rather than similarities between behaviour. Using statistics in this manner compels courts to never even consider imposing the Parliament-set maximum penalty, and guarantees a steady diminution of penalties imposed – ultimately mathematical certainty of this approach is to end up at ‘Zero’.
VII. Safety and security of victims. A major concern to many victims is their appearance at Courts and they are torn between an apparent duty and desire to sit through trials, with constant exposure to the perpetrators and their families and supporters, not only in the Court but outside the Court precinct. Victims can easily feel at risk, and the reality is that sometimes that risk, even if hidden, genuinely exists. The proposal is that with the savings achieved by the abolition of the Committal for a Trial process that a purpose-built studio or set of studios be developed away from the Court precinct where Victims can give their evidence and watch the proceedings of the trial via video link. Video links are in use with the accused so the extension to the Victim is the least the system can do.
VIII. Coordination of services -Throughout government departments, there are a plethora of Quango’s providing services in the Victim space that are uncoordinated and therefore extremely inefficient with each reach requiring their own administration and resources contributing to the loss of Victim budgets on administration rather than output services. Coordination by the independent Commissioner for Victims would be a very sensible move.
IX. Confidentiality of Victims information– An incredible abomination of procedural unfairness has been allowed to evolve in the Trial process where Judges we are told allow evidence solicited from people who have had conversations with a witness. The cross-examination of the character of witnesses in these circumstances where victim’s confidential communications with professionals and others can be explored by the defence is an absolute disgrace and urgent legislation is required to outlaw this practise. What a victim may confide in another person is not admissible or relevant to any criminal trial and by any legal interpretation, any evidence of this type is hearsay and is purely a fishing exercise by defence trying to discredit witnesses.
X. Prior sexual activity of a Victim – This never should be admissible in any circumstances. The offence of Rape can be committed on a Prostitute and the fact of her being a prostitute is not and never should be relevant to the case before the court. If additional Legislation is required then so be it. If this type of practice is not stopped it will be extended to the assailant of a boxer and the previous boxing would go to the severity of the assault being less of an offence because a boxer is used to being assaulted.
XI. Judicial review and Judicial Tenure– The need to review the Judiciary has been tried on many occasions without success because the review is always conducted by the very people who need to be reviewed. Therefore entrenched practices remain, never challenged. The solution is to legislate the tenure of members of the Judiciary where appointments are made by a Joint Parliamentary Committee making recommendations to the Governor in Council. Fixed-term tenure with the ability for extensions, similar to the way the Chief Commissioner is appointed, will see the Judiciary, at last, engage in serious reform or face not being reappointed. If a member of the judiciary is performing well then a long service is very achievable providing the stability that the Judicial system needs. The separation of powers argument cannot be applied to the administrative function of the courts.
XII. Legal representation for vulnerable victims – There is a need for legal support being mandated for young people and people who through age or some other mental impairment to be represented by a Lawyer. Often the accused can be the Victims carer or family member. The Office of the Commissioner for Victims must be given urgent and adequate budget capacity to ensure vulnerable Victims are protected.
Projected outcome
Applying these recommendations will have the following effect.
a) Reduce the Court backlog by freeing Magistrates up and reducing demands on Court resources.
b) Reduce the costs associated with the administration of Committals for Trial.
c) Free up Legal aid Budget to allow for Legal aid for Victims.
d) Reduce the demand for services on the office of the DPP only having to deal with a Brief twice instead of three times.
e) Reduce dramatically Police time committed to the Committal for the Trial process.
f) Reduce demand on Prison staff in transporting and managing prisoners.
g) Free up Prisoner beds by more timely processing of accused persons
h) Give the Victims long overdue recognition and support.
i) Create more effective sentencing procedures
j) Removing Plea Bargaining while still retaining its benefits creates a plea and sentencing consultative process that holds all accused to account without undue additional penalty.
k) Rebuild confidence in the Judicial system which is perceived by the community as being a Law unto itself with little regard to what the community expects.
l) Fixed-term appointments will rapidly correct a number of anomalies and deliver better quality Justice for victims, and perpetrators.
m) Demonstrates tangible support for Victims.
Conclusion
This document was motivated by the plight of a number of victims I had the privilege to listen to, recently. They were not retelling the horrific nature of their encounters with the perpetrators, they were without exception, relating the horrors of dealing with the “system” as a consequence of the crime committed on them. They were reconciled, to various degrees, in relation to the actual crime but what they were not reconciled with was the torturous and unfeeling “System” that made them feel as though they were the perpetrator and have done something wrong by unwittingly becoming a victim.
Ivan W. Ray
Community Advocacy Alliance
23rd February 2018
by CAA | Mar 13, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
13th March 2018
A version of the philosophy behind the, “Broken Window Policing Strategy,” that was so successful in effectively managing the New York crime wave should be applied to the youth issues in Victoria. Not in the same manner as in New York but using the same principle to achieve a similar outcome without huge commitments of police and court resources and the added benefit of nominal cost to the government.
A common denominator with juvenile offending is the inability or an unwillingness of young people to respect the law and the basic and simplest tenet of the law, the set of rules that if you break – you can receive a penalty.
A major contributing factor to the escalation of offending by juveniles is that any consequence for their behaviour is introduced far too late and when it is, in many cases, is not seen by the juveniles as punishment but an inconvenience and often a badge of honour.
If we are going to have any chance of reversing the current trend where not only victims have their lives ruined by crime but the young offenders as well, we have to rethink how we manage youth.
Education is important and the Police in Schools Program is essential to creating a culture of respect for Law and Order before children develop the age old phenomena of testing the boundaries. This rite of passage is exercised in varying degrees by all children as they move through childhood towards adulthood and starts from when their first cognitive skills develop and does not stop. It is not a phenomena that turns off and on but is a continuum on their journey to adulthood.
For the benefit of the children and future victims, if their behaviour strays it has to be checked as should be done from the earliest age by parents before it develops in to serious offending. We need to intervene appropriately. Every parent of every child at every age does, without a second thought, checks children’s behaviour and it is by this method we teach children life skills starting when they are babies.
We need to intervene at a time when young people first come to the notice of police, teachers or parents displaying behaviour that is unlawful, no matter how trivial.
It is at this time when a consequences for their actions needs to be imposed so that they learn very quickly that breaking the law or improper behaviour is not good.
Locking up miscreants for minor matters is counterproductive as is issuing an endless string of cautions, warnings and court orders, threatening jail or some other draconian outcome. We would be foolish to underestimate kids because they work out very quickly whether the threat is hollow.
A strategy that is totally underrated both by Police and in particular the judiciary is the Police Cautioning Program instigated in the 1950s and although in need of an update this program could be modernised to provide the solution to much of our youth problems.
The real advantage of the Cautioning Program is its low key and localised approach.
Every parent knows that children live in the moment, a day to a child seems like a month and their social connections change as regularly as the moon phases as they develop but when they break the Law the process is so slow it is really difficult for a child to rationalise that the process is related to something they did a couple of months ago. Their life has moved on five times between the offending and the legal process.
To make an effective difference we need the system to be able to move quickly and deliver consequences for misbehaviours or criminal acts and the current cautioning program whether it is by police or the courts has proven ineffective.
A caution with a consequence that the child feels and that impacts immediately, needs to be implemented. The rights of the child are not impinged upon as they can elect not to participate and have the matter referred to the Children’s Court.
There is some reticence by police to start discussion on this program as every time they do the Human Rights legal protagonists attack but there needs to be a discussion and reasoned debate excluding the ideologues.
Our proposal is to upgrade the cautioning program to extend the role of parents and educators in the process and involve them directly in negotiating an outcome or consequence depending on the demeanour the child.
Every child that receives an official police caution should be cautioned by an officer in the presence and with the participation of the child’s parent, parents, legal guardian, school coordinator or other school representative to ensure that coordination occurs between the Education System, parents and police.
The coordination generally relates to a suitable penalty which the parents agree to and sign an undertaking that the caution is conditional on the delivery and compliance with the penalty. The reasonable costs incurred as a direct result of the offence should be paid by the child’s parent’s taking hardship into consideration it will clearly focus the parent on ensuring compliance and ongoing correction of the child.
And here is where the crux of the new system resides, the penalties. There should be some creativity applied. It could be handing in their mobile phone, Xbox, or play station to the police station for a given period, generally days or weeks rather than months, cleaning or other chores at the Police station (that penalty has the bonus for the child developing rapport with Police). Losing the right to play sport for a couple of weeks, detention at school or a series of hour or two detentions at the police station or any other appropriate penalty that can be imposed, but, critically, it must be a penalty that is carried through without shortcuts to be effective.
These are very minor penalties and for certain offenders that reoffend and would be perhaps issued a second caution then the penalty can escalate.
The normal rules of the cautioning program applies and the child must admit to the offence.
This initiative is proposed in the spirit it is presented and would have a major impact on the offending of juveniles and dramatically reduce the crime rates and the number of young recidivist offenders in that statistic.
by CAA | Mar 10, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
10th March 2018
The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) warned of the current Crime Tsunami nearly two years ago and unfortunately the predictions were accurate. The CAA further warned that the Pursuit Policies of VicPol would lead to serious consequences and unfortunately that prediction was also accurate. The Bourke Street massacre highlighted the folly of current police policies.
We now predict that unless there are major changes to the police philosophy the Judicial and Penal systems the Crime rate will not flatten as Community and Police Leaders would try to have you believe, but escalate to unbelievable levels. As Police and Community leaders search for the slightest positive in the latest crime figures, the reality is, no matter how you cut it or slice it, we are spiralling towards anarchy.
We have been drawing comparisons between Vitoria and New South Wales Police for nearly two years but the penny still hasn’t dropped in Victoria. It is farcical that another State (right next door) has, and continues to succeed, when Victoria is sliding towards an abyss – we can only assume that pragmatism has been overridden by dogged adherence to some altruistic socialist ideology that’s purpose is not entirely clear.
We are not sure whether there is a glimmer of hope or an effort to ‘spin’ the Community in what Deputy Commissioner Crisp, is reported to have said in response to the latest Statistics,
“Mr Crisp credited old school policing with the recent flat lining of crime.
Arrest numbers have climbed 15 per cent to a new high.
“It’s the back to basics policing for us,” he said.
“It’s about targeting those high-risk recidivist offenders.
The last line is the giveaway and needs to be questioned. It sounds suspiciously like the focus on Task Force Policing is likely to increase dragging further resources from Police stations which is one of the key anomalies of this failed policing experiment embarked on in Victoria.
It is precisely the “Old school policing”, and “Back to Basics approach (prevention),” that the CAA has been advocating since its inception and has been roundly pilloried by VicPol for being old school and from another era not relevant in today’s policing. Today’s policing has failed dismally. It is a time that reality was acknowledged.
The claim by Crisp that arrests are up 15% and that is a good result shows how far VicPol is away from a solution to the rapidly rising crime rate. If crime is up, of course arrests will be up, it is a mathematical certainty. More crime equals more arrests. A bit like shooting fish in a barrel, the more there are the easier it is. What we need, is to reduce crime in the first place, which will mean fewer arrests as there will be fewer offences and fewer criminals. This is the fundamental police premise that just doesn’t get through to VicPol. Crime Prevention must be the first and main focus of Policing.
The other major anomaly is the management by statistics which has led to Police Operations working in the, “past tense” for years. Crime Statistics are submitted by operational Police (when they have time), gathered, collated and evaluated by analysts and then reviewed and the targeting decided upon by a designated Officer. The tasking is then organised with input to the roster cycle.
Sounds good, but this is purely a theoretical approach lost in reality as the police are responding to the crimes committed up to two weeks earlier. Operating perpetually in the, “past tense” means that Police from a particular station can be deployed elsewhere to police a problem that happened a week or more ago reducing the Policing in their normal operational area where crime and disorder is allowed to fester feeding the ever increasing crime and disorder cycle, known as reactive policing.
It is unfortunate this tasking experiment has become the Holy Grail, instead of being a tool to assist in decision making, it has become the decision maker.
The absolute glaring omission from the Political and Police propaganda is “PREVENTION” a concept that is clearly not understood by the current management, much less acted upon. The first principle of Policing is prevention, that simple act of preventing crime which will not only reduce the number of crimes committed and the number of criminals but also make many fewer Victorians victims. Something that does not appear to be a priority for VicPol.
Crime Prevention is the first priority of a Police Force (NSW Police case in point) and the Mission statement for Victoria is no different to any other police force. However Prevention does not manifest itself to any degree in Victoria policing.
The attempt by Victoria Police to arrest their way out of this Crime spike raises another major flaw identified by the CAA and is yet to hit us. It is well and good to take criminals off the streets but what happens when all these Apex gang members and the like are released on parole or have completed their sentence probably within twelve to eighteen months. It won’t be the six year crime cycle the Premier Andrews talks about, it will be the twelve to eighteen month cycle we have to live with. The chances of these criminals coming out of the system any better than when they went in, is stuff pipe dreams are made of, we will be in for it again.
And before the Social architects of the elitist left start blaming the Juvenile Detention system, can you please just get a grip. Before you start on the much extolled mantra, “don’t put children in Detention as it will only make them worse, rubbish,” ask yourself the question “Worse than what”?
It is now critical that people like the CAA are taken seriously and their views properly evaluated – it might just help
by CAA | Jan 23, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
This is a three part account of Why Youth Crime Spiralled out of control in Victoria and what we can do about it: Pat 1 Victoria Police Command’s Bad Public Policy Decisions; Part II – A failure by IBAC and Victoria Police to Investigate Complaints and Part III – What We can do about it.
Part. 1 Victoria Police Bad Public Policy Decisions
I am John Thexton, I am now a private investigator. I resigned from Victoria Police in disgust in July 2016 after 42 years. I held the rank of Inspector. I have been a detective at various ranks including local Crime Investigation Units and the Drug Squad. I have also performed duties as a police prosecutor, Local Area Commander and in Community Development and Policy and Planning and Risk Assessment roles. I hold a Master’s Degree in Leadership and Management (Policing), a Diploma in Alcohol & other Drugs and Certificate IVs Youth Work & Training and Assessment. In 2015 I was also employed by Charles Sturt University teaching NSW Police Recruits at the NSW Police Academy.
It is as clear as the nose on your face that many of the issues we face today, including: youth crime, youth gangs, the “ice epidemic”, home grown terrorism, hoon behaviour, family violence and mental health issues, all have a common denominator, that being disengagement of youth from their families, education and their broader communities. For Victoria Police command to not actively support structured face to face engagement with youth just defies common sense.
Nobody in Victoria Police Command has intentionally set out to make this State less safe, but to the detriment of our communities and operational police officers, that has been the result of their policy decisions to retreat from engaging effectively with the communities they took a oath to protect. They have failed in their commitment to their oath of office that: “I will prevent to the best of my power all offences”. A commitment which stems from the earliest principles of policing. Victoria Police command have retreated from those principles and have indeed in the words of former Chief Commissioner Kel Glare, Lost the Plot.
Petrol Drive-Offs
Other poor policy decisions by Victoria Police command that lead to this fiasco was the change in policy relating to the theft of petrol, petrol drive – offs. As part of my then role as Regional Policy Adviser this policy was circulated for comment prior to its release. One senior commissioned police officer wrote, “Who thought this was a good idea” and “This is nothing but crime prevention by statistical redesign.” These few comments sum up the thoughts of many operational police. I researched the issue and found that Victoria Police was following a similar policy in Western Australia. I found that 12 months after the introduction police officers were failing to investigate where there was clear supporting evidence that a criminal offence had occurred. Western Australia Police had to issue a direction to police officers to actually conduct an investigation.
This was a policy that was supposedly sending a message to large corporate companies to change the way petrol was sold, but in effect was actually a message to thieves that they had a green light and a message to every person working behind the counter that Victoria Police was abandoning them and yet another reinforcement of the message that when it comes to policing, “There is nothing we can do about it.” see Police Urged to Investigate Petrol Thieves after Civil Ruling Led to Surge in Drive Offs
Strangely enough people who steal petrol tend to be involved in a whole range of other anti-social behaviour. If a report is not taken there is no incentive for service stations to update CCTV or for that matter provide any CCTV footage to police. Result, Police investigators job made harder to identify offenders who may have been involved in other crimes including home invasions. I recommended against the implementation of this policy and recommended adoption of the NSW and Queensland Police approach.
The adoption of the policy and subsequent outcry resulted in a Victorian parliamentary Inquiry into fuel drive-offs The Committee’s first recommendation was that Victoria Police develops an online fuel drive off incident report form (precisely what NSW and Oueensland had in place) and the second recommendation was that Victoria Police actually conduct an investigation when a petrol theft is reported – https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/LRRCSC_Inquiry_into_Fuel_Drive-Offs.pdf. Common sense really.
Victoria Police Youth Foundation
Also, at this time Victoria Police command withdrew support for the Victoria Police Youth Foundation. The Foundation was specifically established to fund projects which involved Police engaging with Youth. The foundation, through its Executive Officer, Andy Walsh established links with business corporations such as the Pratt Family group of companies and Linfox and the Union movement. These links provided an increasing generous funding source to break down the barriers between Police and Youth and contributing to providing a safer and more inclusive community. Just as the fund gathered momentum and funds began rolling in Victoria Police Command pulled the pin.
Youth Parole
Recidivism rates by youth released from Youth Justice Centres is even higher than that of adults released from prison. Yet when an adult is released on parole, the release date, the conditions of parole and the parolees address are routinely forwarded to Victoria Police from Corrections Victoria. Youth Justice Centres come under the control of the Department of Human Services and do not routinely release this information. I submitted numerous reports to Victoria Police command detailing the risks of police not receiving this information and provided specific instances of youth coming into contact with police and breaching their parole conditions, without police being aware of those conditions and those youth going on to re-offend. The Department of Human Services responded that the Department would not routinely release this information as it was an issue of privacy. I obtained a legal opinion that debunked this claim and directed Victoria Police to the existence of an administrative mechanism to possibly resolve this disagreement on policy. Despite this Victoria Police failed to pursue this issue.
Road Safety
Over five thousand Victorians a month ring 000 each month to report drivers driving dangerously on our roads (Computer Aided Despatch date collected by the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority that you as a member of the public who pays for this to be collected is not allowed to see. Despite the public desire to help, Victoria Police does not have in place a process to consistently and effectively deal with these calls. Over a number of years, I submitted reports detailing the serious consequences, including serious injury and death, which have occurred as a result of this failure – see, Killer drug driver Joseph Brigante jailed over the death of Barbara Digby. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/killer-drug-driver-joseph-brigante-jailed-over-the-death-of-barbara-digby/news-story/0a52683e45e4ed5822612eb316dc4d6a
I demonstrated what can be achieved by properly investigating these calls and also worked with colleagues to improve the data available to address this issue. Victoria Police still does not have in place a process to consistently and effectively deal with these calls. Failure to do so will continue to cost lives.
Local Management
Chief Commissioner Neil Comrie introduced, Local Priority Policing in 1999. Victoria Police aligned their boundaries and service delivery with municipalities. In metropolitan Melbourne an Inspector was responsible for day to day policing within each municipality. Two municipalities formed a Division with a Superintendent in Charge. In regional Victoria an Inspector was in charge of an area covering two municipalities with a Division often covering four municipalities. Despite the Inspectors being poorly supported with appropriate resources local police and the public in a municipality knew who was responsible for day to day policing in that area.
The state was also divided into five Regions, one covering the City of Melbourne and the remaining four following major transport routes and communities of interest. Each Region had responsibility for portions of metropolitan Melbourne and Regional and Rural areas. This meant that the old cave up of resources between the “city and the bush”, with the country being the poor cousins was addressed.
During 2013 the management of local service delivery moved to a Divisional platform where various Inspectors were responsible for aspects of service delivery. This meant that no longer was there one Inspector in charge of all aspects of day to day policing in a municipal area. The responsibility for day to day policing had effectively been moved further from the community they served.
The Regions were also realigned to a hotchpotch of a mix of purely metropolitan Melbourne Regions and Regions covering metropolitan and regional and rural areas. Many regional boundaries were realigned to the metropolitan/rural interface, the very areas that are at the highest risk for bushfires where the greatest co-ordination of resources is required in times of emergencies. Other Government Departments have not followed this flawed approach.
The last major increase in police numbers saw a significant number go to a centralised command in the Force Response Unit and the Public Order Response Team. This was done without any communication to police officers on the front line or the broader community that this was an approach that was evidence based and shown to be successful in any other jurisdiction similar to Victoria. Having a centralised model meant that if the support of these officers was required in the outer suburban hotspots, such as Dandenong, Casey, Cranbourne or Frankston, two hours of any shift were lost by simply travelling to the area, let alone if they were required in regional centres, such as Shepparton, Mildura, Bendigo, Ballarat or the Latrobe Valley. A number of different models could have been trialled, including having similarly trained members located at decentralised locations closer to the areas where they were required or simply deploying additional members to these areas. The various models could have been evaluated and the best applied.
Uniform
The whole shift to a darker more ominous colour smacked of a force less likely to engage with the community and of an organisation bereft of ideas and taking a copycat approach rather than effectively supporting innovation to improve community safety. The only state in Australia that has not succumbed to this latest edict of the fashion police is New South Wales, who have resisted change for the sake of change, but are looking at change only in order to make operational police officers safer.
This retreat from engaging with communities has not occurred in other States where the crime rates have been falling, e.g when Victoria Police withdrew police from schools NSW was establishing such initiatives. NSW and Qld each have almost 60 Police & Citizen Youth Club (PCYC) each supported by full time police officers. Victoria has one PCYC not supported by a full time police officer.
Any questioning of the legality or wisdom of these policy decisions from those within Victoria Police has been ruthlessly suppressed. As occurred with former Inspector Gordon Charteris before me. Failure to allow these concerns to be heard has meant these policies have been implemented without due scrutiny or discussion by the public.
Part II – A failure by IBAC and Victoria Police to Investigate Complaints
On 16 May 2014 I spoke out on the ABC 7.30 Report regarding this issue after Victoria Police withdrew resources from Operation Newstart. I also published a A Case for Operation Newstart @ 09 04 2014 on the Operation Newstart website and commented in articles published in the Geelong Advertiser on 15 April 2014 and 3 May 2014 – Police fear surge in youth crime and deaths after axe falls on life-changing Operation Newstart program, http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/news/geelong/police-fear-surge-in-youth-crime-and-deaths-after-axe-falls-on-lifechanging-operation-newstart-program/news-story/a1c01c5c19cfb783ae0e6c4e069732e9.
Operation Newstart was a partnership between Victoria Police and the Department of Education which reengaged at risk youth in Education which was first established in 1997. At its peak nine programs operated in Metropolitan and Regional Victoria. The program was independently evaluated and commended by a Victorian Parliamentary Drug & Crime Prevention Committee, in an Inquiry into Locally Based Approaches to Community Safety and Crime Prevention in 2012. The program was also recognised as a national winner of the 2010 Crime and Violence Prevention Awards (http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_community/acvpa/2010.html). The program has the potential to expand to every municipality across the state.
I took these steps after exhausting all other avenues, because as a police officer with forty years experience I was extremely concerned that the policies of Victoria Police Command would make Victoria far less safe. Unfortunately my fears since 2014 have come to fruition.
As a result of my actions I was subsequently charged with a disciplinary offence of disobeying a lawful instruction to not speak out.
I maintained that the instruction I was given in fact was not a “lawful instruction”. My complaint was that Victoria Police Command had acted “unlawfully” in coming to the decision to issue the instruction.
The “lawful instruction” was in fact “unlawful” as Victoria Police had failed to obey the law when making the decision to issue the instruction:
• Section 38 of the Human Rights and Responsibilities Act required Victoria Police to give “proper consideration” to human rights, prior to making the decision to issue the instruction, otherwise the decision is unlawful at law.
• The steps needed to be taken to give “proper consideration” have been clearly defined by the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal.
• There is no evidence to date that Victoria Police followed these steps.
I made a complaint to IBAC and Victoria Police that Victoria Police Command had acted unlawfully.
IBAC chose not to investigate my complaint:
• IBAC can chose not to investigate under the IBAC Act.
• One of the functions of IBAC under Section 15 of the IBAC Act is to assess police personnel conduct and “to ensure that members of the police force have regard to human rights set out in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006”.
• Failure to investigate complaints of police personnel conduct in preference to only investigating serious corrupt conduct is the equivalent of failing to put barriers at the top of a cliff to prevent injuries in preference to deploying ambulances at the bottom of the cliff. This was a bad public policy decision.
However, Victoria Police does not have an option not to investigate. Under Section 169 of the Victoria Police Act, The Chief Commissioner must investigate a complaint about the misconduct of a police officer. Victoria Police refused to investigate my complaint. My complaint has gone uninvestigated by both Victoria Police and the “watchdog” IBAC.
Why should any of my personal experience where I resigned from Victoria Police with a disciplinary charge hanging over head after not being charged with any disciplinary offence in over 40 years of policing and being awarded the National Medal and 35 year Good Conduct Medal be of any interest to members of the public. Because my experience is indicative of a hierarchical organisation that does not change unless their behaviour is challenged in the courts. It is an organisation that manages by fear. Because this dysfunctional behaviour has consequences for operational police, including stress and poor mental health outcomes, at times tragically ending in suicide. Policing is difficult enough without also battling dysfunctional management. Not being accountable also leads to Victoria Police Command making poor public policy decisions with impunity.
Further evidence of failure to investigate complaints made to both Victoria Police and IBAC can be found in a farcical use of social media, more akin to the behaviour of school kid than a member of Victoria Police Command. Refusing to investigate is not an investigation: an investigation being defined as a search for the truth; in the interests of justice; in accordance with the law.
Following a personal attack by Assistant Commissioner Fryer on the Chairman of Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA), former Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police Kel Glare, in May of 2017, a troll using the nom de plume Vernon Demerest (a character from the 1970’s movie Airport) started attacking the CAA on facebook and Kel Glare in particular.
The troll accidentally outed himself as Assistant Commissioner Brett Guerin, the head of the Victoria Police Professional Standards Command when he briefly published derogatory comments under his own name before taking down the post and publishing under the name of Vernon Demerest.
CAA lodged a complaint with the Chief Commissioner who, by law under the IBAC Act must refer any complaints against the rank of Assistant Commissioner and above to IBAC.
IBAC determined that the complaint would not be investigated by them and referred it back to the Chief Commissioner who has decided not to take the matter further.
Would a member of the Police force of a lower rank escape investigation for creating and using a fake identity on Facebook for no other purpose than to denigrate a member of the Public? Executive police officers should be held to the same or a higher account than other ranks in the Force. And no more so that the head of the Police Professional Standards Command.
In another instance, Victoria Police Command and IBAC also refused to investigate a complaint that members of the Professional Standards Command who it was alleged acted inappropriately in charging a Victoria Police employee with criminal offences. At the eleventh hour prior to the case going to Court the Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew all charges.
The culture of acting with impunity and being more concerned with perceptions rather than facts and evidence has also been highlighted by the Police Registration and Service Board decision to reverse a decision to dismiss a Senior Constable from Victoria Police, Victoria Police officer sacked for punching 13-year-old boy in face is reinstated,
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-police-officer-sacked-for-punching-13yearold-boy-in-face-is-reinstated-20171228-h0b1hk.html and The cases: Victorian police reinstated after review of dismissals
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-cases-victorian-police-reinstated-after-review-of-dismissals-20160629-gputmd.html, both articles written by Nino Bucci a Crime Reporter for The Age.
A further article by Nino Bucci: Police complaints process overhauled after a decade of criticism: states Assistant Commissioner Brett Guerin is overhauling the police complaints process. The article fails to mention that his overhaul apparently includes, not investigating complaints at all. Is this the case of the fox being in charge of the hen house?
The consequences of the failure by Victoria Police and IBAC to conduct investigations into my complaint and similar complaints has meant Victoria Police Command can act with impunity, where making bad public policy decisions can be made unimpeded, such decisions have contributed to making Victoria less safe.
Part III – What We can do about it:
Take a bi-partisan approach and have both the Opposition parties and Labor set policies that ensure Victoria Police restores prevention as part of Victoria Police core duties. Support Victoria Police to work collaboratively with other agencies and the public in developing programs that see police having face to face engagement outside a reactive operational setting, particularly with youth.
Examine has worked in Victoria, e.g. re-examine Police in Schools, Blue Light Disco, Neighbourhood Watch and Operation Newstart and other initiatives such as Backyard Rugby and what works in other states in Australia that have not experienced the dramatic increase in youth crime, look at how police in schools operate and PCYCs.
Change the culture of policing by making promotion within Victoria Police dependent on demonstrating a commitment to effective prevention of offences and positively supporting police under an applicant’s command. By Victoria Police taking a leadership role in preventing offences will encourage many more community members to actively participate in preventing youth from disengaging from their families and communities.
Recognise successful prevention initiatives and initiatives that include members of the public in preventing and reducing crime and public disorder and safety on our roads.
Over the last three years the Community Advocacy Alliance, chaired by former Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, Kel Glare and made up of former Victoria Police members, two of whom went on to be Commissioners of Queensland and Tasmania Police, and concerned citizens, have been meeting and providing advice to both opposition parties and the government in Victoria. Both have been receptive; however, Victoria Police Command has not demonstrated the same openness to listen and have in fact displayed hostility, as demonstrated above. We need to openly discuss and debate Prevention and Citizen Empowered Policing and the Community Advocacy Alliance 100-point plan, that not only looks at policing, but also the criminal justice system as a whole, to make Victoria a safer place.
We need to ensure IBAC takes into account their duties under the whole act, including, personnel conduct and misconduct not just serious corruption – if IBAC does not have enough funding to investigate what leads to serious corruption then IBAC needs to make a strong case to ensure the funding is required and provided. Have Victoria Police comply with the law under the Human Rights and Responsibility Act (after all the Victorian Court of Appeal found that the Victoria Government was required to do so, so why not Victoria Police), this will lead to sounder and more accountable decisions as envisaged when the Act was originally debated. Have Victoria Police comply with the Victoria Police Act to investigate complaints made to them.
by CAA | Jan 21, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
21st January 2018
Recent attempts in Letters to Editors to defend our judges and magistrates against criticism entirely miss the point. Or, more accurately, the defenders try to divert attention by pretending to misunderstand the criticism – and that is really bad of them.
Their defence of the indefensible is very poor and we would have expected a more robust defence but alas their defence only reinforces the views currently held by the community – you are out of touch and your defence shows just how far.
We at the Community advocacy Alliance (CAA) have criticised judges and magistrates for making decisions on bail and custody matters – including sentences – which are entirely out of touch with community expectations and which do not protect citizens from predators.
We see such protection as a primary function of courts; they ought to be able to use the weapons the law gives them to minimise the chances of violent criminals re-offending. It makes little sense doing something that the offender perceives as “getting out of jail free”.
There must be adverse consequences for violent criminals who re-offend or who are convicted. If not, victims feel betrayed, police feel let down and frustrated, and the offender feels victorious.
If judges and magistrates are so hell-bent on NOT meeting community expectations, the very least they can do is stop expressing resentment at being criticised.
And the next thing they should do is expect to be made more publicly accountable for the manner in which they exercise the extensive discretion entrusted to them.
And finally they ought to accept responsibility for the consequences of their own incompetent decision-making.
Have a bit of backbone people! Stop kowtowing to the apologists for violent offenders, of any colour or creed. Stop releasing violent offenders again, and again, and again.
by CAA | Jan 18, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
18th January 2018
Luka Luka, 18 year old African continues to rack up heinous crimes and no matter how many times Police put him before the courts the Judiciary apply the scourge of the Legal system, “Therapeutic Jurisprudence”. The principle by which the judiciary hide behind rather than incarcerating violent thugs.
If anybody believes that this thug, based on what it is reported he has been up to, will correct his behaviour any time soon is to be completely and utterly naive.
It would be very interesting to see what the average person would think of the excuses put up and accepted by the Court to justify a Community Corrections Order.
It is long odds on that Luka will not complete year 12 and he will continue to reoffend again and again until he feels consequence for his illegal actions. Does he know right from wrong? You can bet he does. Does he know he is breaking the Law? You can bet he does. Does he respect the law? – NO WAY.
This Magistrate has again fed into the belief that young people, particularly if they are black, will not be punished for their crime – Surely the stern talking to by the magistrate carried significant weight and influenced Luka to behave and act within the Law – well at least until he got outside the Court. A Community Corrections Order may be punishment in eyes of some but I bet it is not in the eyes of Luka. All he will see is that he beat the charge.
The problem is a form of reverse discrimination whereby a lack of decisive action by the Courts is adversely affecting the future of these youthful offenders. Decisive action when they first appear before the Court would have reduced offending because they would learn there are consequence for breaking the law.
Elsewhere in society we accept that the hard discipline on breaches of behavioural standards in the first years of Secondary school with detentions liberally applied leads to a more homogenous school community overall as the standards and disciple are applied from day one.
The case of Luka is a Prime example of why there is a problem in this State with Law and Order and in particular with Young Black Africans.
Until the criminal justice system treats all offenders equally, regardless of race, colour or creed, Victoria will never come to grips with the problem of youth crime.
by CAA | Jan 13, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
13th January 2018
The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) has made no secret about its alarm and despondency at the continuing unwillingness of Victoria’s courts (meaning many of our magistrates and judges) to sensibly apply the law and impose appropriate sanctions to proven violent offenders.
Time and again by the imposition of inadequate penalties their actions tell criminals within our society that there are no real consequences for predatory behaviour. “Do it again chaps!” Is this some sort of job-creation scheme?
This week we saw Shaun Mowbray reportedly plead guilty to his NINTH offence of bashing police – among an extensive career of preying on the rest of us. (Herald Sun 12/1/18). Instead of setting a well-deserved maximum penalty the magistrate opined the court should consider individual circumstances.
Such as the circumstance that the policewoman Mowbray bashed will be off work until after Mowbray returns to a free society? No, no. Such as the circumstance that Mowbray had threatened other peace officers? No, no. Such as the circumstance that Mowbray had threatened to burn down his own mother’s house? No, no.
The magistrate was only talking about the sob story put up by Mowbray’s lawyer. To hell with the rest of society!
Oh there was lip-service – or should that be “gesture politics” – paid to “public expectations”; but yet again the words just meant nothing. Yet again the courts have demonstrated that …well, you make up your own mind, dear reader, about what the courts have actually demonstrated.
Elsewhere we have pointed out how the cry for “therapeutic justice” is used, without legislative or authoritative fiat to justify such abrogation of responsibility. Not therapy for victims, of course. They do not count in that scheme.
Hence we see Dr Kevin Donnelly, in the same newspaper recalling former days when “governments and authorities … acknowledge(ed) that their first and primary responsibility is to protect the lives and property of citizens instead of making excuses for those committing crimes”.
We would add to those responsibilities: giving a measure of realistic protection to those who stand in harm’s way on our behalf.
Words are no substitute for action and the hollow assurances being trotted out time and again from Spring Street merely serve to define this as the State of False Pretences, Political Correctness & Spin.
Repeated acts of violence deserve severe penalties and when the victims of that violence – repeatedly – are our protectors we cannot stand idly by and tolerate such pretences masquerading as a fair application of the law.
by CAA | Jan 9, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
9th January 2018
Last week leaders in government and police finally admitted Victoria has a gang problem.
We say finally because the gang problem is not new. Ten years ago government was told this. A media article in October 2007 reported on senior police advising Premier JOHN BRUMBY of their frustration at government’s inability to go beyond political correctness to focus on criminal gang behaviour.
Crime by gangs of young thugs was identified back then as a looming threat. Now the threat is a reality of tsunami proportions.
We acknowledge that African gang crime is committed by only a few among this particular community. But the nature of this criminality is violent creating mayhem for many citizens and damaging the lives of a growing number. Police regularly arresting some only to see them bailed out does nothing to reassure the public nor keep our society safe.
As things stand in this state unless positive action is taken people are going to die. Just last weekend an innocent pizza store employee was shot, twice, in a robbery. If he had returned fire just imagine the outcry against him by the apologists for criminals!
Let us resolve to actually punish serious criminal offenders with the penalties set by Parliament, to close loopholes in the law that allow judges and magistrates to avoid doing just that, and to tell would-be criminals, of any age, and any ethnicity, that their open warfare against Victoria’s citizens just ended.
This Government is asleep at the wheel. Its time it jettisoned political correctness and its ideologically driven “therapeutic” approach to justice which underpins our judicial system and woke up to a primary mandate for any government – to keep its citizens safe.
by CAA | Jan 7, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
7th January 2018
The Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) has seen so many of its observations and proposals become widely recognised by others that it almost becoming mundane. We have discussed how out of touch the judiciary has become, how Victoria’s crime tsunami grew and grew and how both government and its agencies stood helplessly looking on.
The Sydney-based Weekend Australian was also looking on. Read the January 6-7 edition. Headlines read “African gang’s reign of fear” (p.1), “Smartphone ban annoyed alleged (bailed) cop-kicking teen” (p4), “(judge) Lasry tweet ‘risks court impartiality’ “ (p. 4), “Streets of Menace” (p. 11), “Melbourne is Trouble-free for Gangs or Union Thugs” (p. 16), “Politically correct culture erodes the justice system”, (p. 17) and “Gesture politics blocks the nation’s progress” (p. 11) – all save the last item dealing exclusively with Victoria.
This respected national observer chose to speak out where our own State authorities either misled us or did too little too late. Will they now listen to what we said – now that the national newspaper is saying it? Probably not, despite last week’s about-turn on recognising, at long last, the existence of gangs.
We believe that too many magistrates and judges in Victoria have for so long demonstrated unwillingness to apply the law to recalcitrant or serious offenders, seeking excuses to avoid jailing those who most obviously prey upon citizens and looking for loopholes in the law, and that as a group they should now be made more publicly accountable; the courts ought to more overtly support the police officers who expose those offenders, by imposing penalties that fit the crimes. The absence of adverse consequences for offenders ensures that their peers and admirers will copy them – hence the “tsunami”.
Thus we advocate the appointment of judges and magistrates on the open recommendation of a Joint Parliamentary Committee, rather than on the basis of who are politically correct favourites.
We also advocate such appointment becoming contractual, with renewal depending upon the same Committee being satisfied that an official has actually demonstrated willingness to apply the law of the land fairly and with proper regard for the protection of the persons and property of citizens.
To best avoid any appearance of party favouritism the committee’s views should not be acted upon unless supported by a majority of members drawn from both sides of the Lower House.
by CAA | Jan 3, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
3rd January 2018
The troll we exposed, Victoria Police head of Professional Standards Command, could face charges as could his colleague.
The Federal offence of,’ Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence’ carries a penalty of three years imprisonment.
It would seem that there is a primia facie case that the two Commissioners acting in concert have breached this Section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. However, as there has been a refusal to investigate the matter there remains a doubt, albeit that the allegations have never been denied by VicPol or either of the Commissioners.
That makes this whole saga very embarrassing for IBAC and the Chief Commissioner who both failed to investigate a complaint of a serious crime.
It is also very embarrassing for the State Government.
The two Assistant Commissioners involved in this issue will be waiting for the inevitable tap on the shoulder either from their more ethical colleagues or one of their ethical bosses.
To retain any remnants of credibility the two Commissioners have left, they should do the honourable thing and resign to save further embarrassment to the Force and in particular the Force Command who are currently under fire for the perilous state of crime in this State and can ill afford a further erosion of public confidence..
A bigger problem remains for the Premier, Daniel Andrews who has steadfastly supported the Chief Commissioner.
Does he now support the Chief Commissioner refusing to investigate complaints of criminal activity by Victoria Police Command like his Minister who announced today (2/01/2018) her complete confidence in Police Command?
By the Chief Commissioner not doing what the Police Act requires him to do he has put himself in a tenuous position bordering on complicity. Not ensuring that Victoria Police is distanced from the scurrilous remarks by Assistant Commissioner Fryer by ensuring they are retracted and the Trolling activity by Assistant Commissioner Guerin ceases, drags the Government into the fray because the refusal to investigate means that the activities of the Commissioners are endorsed by Victoria Police.
This whole sorry saga needs to be sorted and unfortunately falls to the feet of the Acting Chief Commissioner in what may be a true test of his credentials given that Chief Commissioner Ashton has already announced he will not be extending his tenure with no guarantee he will fulfil his contract, given his poor health.
Mr Premier there is a wildfire moving out of control and it will consume many if it is not controlled.
The integrity of Victoria Police Command is at stake.
Maybe you need to do some shoulder tapping.
by CAA | Jan 3, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
3th January 2018
The Community Advocacy Alliance recently had cause to expose underhanded Victoria Police tactics by a senior officer, acting under a false name in what can most charitably be described as an unbecoming manner. The Chief Commissioner of Police has refused to take any action and has thereby supported that poor conduct.
Unfortunately this is just part of a pattern indicative of deep malaise within that organisation, and particularly within the “Professional Standards” section of it.
The Chief Commissioner has also refused to take any action in a case where detectives knowingly charged a citizen on the basis of documents they knew were not just unreliable but were also completely inadmissible in court – yet they put those unreliable documents forward in court.
This gross abuse of power was ruled fully acceptable by police Professional Standards!
The same detectives produced to the citizen another document which fully disproved their allegations against him – but that document was NOT put before the court and has never been seen again. Professional Standards approved that too!
The Chief Commissioner has been told about the detectives inserting in a witness statement material they knew was false – just as Andrew Rule exposed in the Herald Sun (November 26, 2017). And yet the Chief Commissioner has done nothing but refuse to act.
CAA has other correspondence from a head of the police Professional Standards command which incorporates not merely dishonesty but abuse of the very law the police are supposed to enforce.
Nothing has been done despite complaints having been lodged, just as CAA has reported the most recent abuse.
None of this is new. Andrew Rule also reported (Herald Sun October 3, 2015) how Professional Standards covered up a straight out theft by a detective who has since “progressed smoothly up the promotional ladder.”
Something stinks at police headquarters, and it is not the drains.
by CAA | Jan 2, 2018 | Library, Uncategorized
2 January 2018
Possibly the last suspect on your list, it was on ours.
A personal attack on the Chairman and more generally on the Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) by Victoria Police was aimed at trying to discredit and bully the organisation as thirty years out of touch and therefore irrelevant to the modern demands on Policing.
The attack was delivered on behalf of Victoria Police by an acting Deputy Commissioner Fryer.
The attack apart from being generally churlish was factually incorrect and exaggerated. It is true that some of our members of the executive of the alliance have retired from executive positions in Victoria Police and elsewhere some time ago. But the CAA Executive also has civilian members who influence the CAA from a community perspective and like the Policing component represent historical and current victims. The executive also has members who finished their police careers recently.
What may not be particularly palatable to Victoria Police is that serving police support the CAA and much of the material produced and policies recommended are influenced by these members.
The attack was of a personal nature and an attempt to bully the CAA but most disturbing was the avoidance by Victoria Police of actions to address the thing that has spawned the CAA and community concern – the Crime tsunami currently being experienced in Victoria.
This core issue was completely ignored.
The CAA acknowledged that things like sexual harassment and discrimination are important and should form part of management responsibilities but to elevate these internal management responsibilities above the roll of the police organisation and responsibility to the community it serves is to really question priorities.
Part two of this attack was a post on the CAA Facebook page by a Vernon Demerest which generally followed the same line as the Fryer attack. This Demerest attack was in response to a defence of the Victoria Police allegations by one of the CAA executive who was personally offended.
In his attack Demerest bemoans that the Plan 100 produced by CAA as, “A list of easy gets, which appeal to populist politicians who aren’t really interested in doing the heavy lifting by investing in the things which will really make a long-term difference to the social problems we currently endure. Early intervention in childhood development and education, for example.”
This is an enlightening insight to the author who criticises the Plan 100 obviously without reading it. A key strategy of the Plan 100 is to re-engage with Youth and in particular to reintroduce Police to Schools in a structured Police In Schools Program. Be interesting to know what all this heavy lifting is and how that helps Victorians currently living in fear. Having cheap shots at politicians will not do the authors career any good.
A bit about Demerest.
Vernon Demerest is a fictional character played by Dean Martin in the movie Airport, ironically thirty years ago. Yes the Facebook page is a fake as is Demerest fictional.
Demerest became a troll on the CAA Facebook page lodging a number of posts attacking some of the genuine people who made rational coments.
Demerest was invited to expose his real identity but as with all trolls he continued to hide.
One would have thought that the troll who is a serving member of the Victoria Police would have realised that trying to outsmart a coterie of ex police who coincidently are all trained investigators would not be the smartest thing to do..
It did take us forty eight hours to identify the Troll’s alter ego, who is ironically in charge of the Victoria Police Professional Standards Command. He has now taken down the fake Facebook page deleted all of his posts and even deleted his own Facebook page. All a bit late the material was retained by the CAA and for security distributed and filed elsewhere.
The problem for the CAA is, what to do now.
We know who the troll is but to expose the troll would be very embarrassing for Victoria Police given the positon the Troll has in the organisation but the public has a right to know as they are paying this troll’s salary.
Because of the lack of response to our correspondence from Victoria Police we lodged a formal complaint against Assistant Commissioner Fryer for his outburst and Assistant Commissioner Guerin, AKA Vernon Demerest the troll.
As the Police Act requires any complaints against any Commissioners must be referred to IBAC, who after consideration, not investigation, returned the file to the Chief Commissioner and we have no difficulty with that process thus far.
The Chief Commissioner has however decided that he will not investigate or take further action.
We can only conclude from that that the Chief Commissioner endorses the libellous remarks by Assistant Commissioner Fryer and effectively adopted the remarks as those of Victoria Police. The Chief Commissioner obviously has no problem with Assistant Commissioner Guerin, the head of Victoria Police Professional Standards Command, creating a false identity on social media with the sole intention of pursuing a personal attack on the CAA and its Chairman.
I would have thought that this behaviour is not very ethical and wonder how a members of a lower rank doing the same would be treated by the Professional Standards Command.
We ask again for the Chief Commissioner to investigate this matter properly and if the evidence is there commence disciplinary proceedings or otherwise sanction the two Commissioners and step Victoria Police away from endorsing this type of behaviour.
by CAA | Dec 31, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
31st december 2017
A personal attack on the Chairman and more generally on the Community Advocacy Alliance (CAA) by Victoria Police was aimed at trying to discredit and bully the organisation as thirty years out of touch and therefore irrelevant to the modern demands on Policing.
The attack was delivered on behalf of Victoria Police by an acting Deputy Commissioner Fryer.
The attack apart from being generally churlish was factually incorrect and exaggerated. It is true that some of our members of the executive of the alliance have retired from executive positions in Victoria Police and elsewhere some time ago. But the CAA Executive also has civilian members who influence the CAA from a community perspective and like the Policing component represent historical and current victims. The executive also has members who finished their police careers recently.
What may not be particularly palatable to Victoria Police is that serving police support the CAA and much of the material produced and policies recommended are influenced by these members.
What stood out about this attack and what was obviously the personal nature and an attempt to bully the CAA but most disturbing was the avoidance by Victoria Police to address the thing that has spawned the CAA and community concern – the Crime tsunami currently being experienced in Victoria. This core issue completely ignored.
The CAA acknowledged that things like sexual harassment and discrimination are important and should form part of management responsibilities but to elevate these internal management responsibilities above the roll of the police organisation and responsibility to the community it serves is to really question priorities.
Part two of this attack was a post on the CAA Facebook page by a Vernon Demerest which generally followed the same line as the Fryer attack. This Demerest attack was in response to a defence of the Victoria Police allegations by one of the executive who was personally offended.
In this attack Demerest bemoans that the Plan 100 produced by CAA is, “A list of easy gets, which appeal to populist politicians who aren’t really interested in doing the heavy lifting by investing in the things which will really make a long-term difference to the social problems we currently endure. Early intervention in childhood development and education, for example.”
This is an enlightening insight to the author who criticises the Plan 100 obviously without reading it. A key strategy of the Plan 100 is to reengage with Youth and in particular reintroduce Police to Schools in a structured Police In Schools Program. Be interesting to know what all this heavy lifting is and how that helps Victorians currently living in fear. Having cheap shots at politicians will not do the authors career any good.
A bit about the Demerest.
Vernon Demerest is a fictional character played by Dean Martin in the movie Airport, ironically thirty years ago. Yes the Facebook page is a fake as is Demerest fictional.
Demerest became a troll on the CAA Facebook page lodging a number of posts attacking some of the genuine people who made rational coments.
Demerest was invited to expose his real identity but as with all trolls he continued to hide.
One would have thought that the troll who is a serving member of the Victoria Police would have realised that trying to outsmart a coterie of ex police who coincidently are all trained investigators would not be the smartest thing to do..
It did take us forty eight hours to identify the Troll’s alter ego who has now taken down the fake Facebook page deleted all of his posts and even deleted his own Facebook page. All a bit late the material was retained by the CAA and for security distributed and filed elsewhere.
The problem for the CAA is, what to do now.
We know who the troll is but to expose the troll would be very embarrassing for Victoria Police given the positon the Troll has in the organisation but the public has a right to know as they are paying this troll’s salary.
by CAA | Dec 29, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
29th December 2019
The cost of criminal activity in this State is skyrocketing and whether the impost is on our taxes or our insurance premiums we all pay, many times twice, but the criminals responsible, do not.
It is time to raise again that much maligned concept of restitution.
It is argued that most criminals, particularly younger ones, have no capacity to pay, so restitution is a waste of time. The capacity to pay should not influence the liability. The ability to pay and the liability are not mutually exclusive.
It may be some years before a criminal has the capacity to pay restitution but the debt should not be expunged by serving a sentence or other court sanction of any type, a bit like HECS fees. The victim or their Insurers do not have the capacity to wipe their cost, so why should the criminal who gained from the crime, avoid responsibility. There is something perverse about crime paying.
• The issue of reasonable restitution to victims should be determined by the Judiciary at a point in proceedings where the case is proved (Guilt is determined) and before the matter of sentence is addressed.
• The costs associated with the crime should form part of the Police Brief so the material is available to the court, the prosecution (to prosecute for appropriate restitution) and the defence (the defendant).
• Offenders under 18 can have the restitution liability linked to their parent/s. Once this becomes known, watch the improved supervision of minors by parents.
• Recovery of the restitution from perpetrators after they are released or have some other Court imposed sanction, should be managed by the Tax Office not the Courts on a set minimum rate of 25% of their income, irrespective of how that income is derived.
• At any time the Convicted person can expunge the debt by settling with the Tax Office.
• Social Service income should not be excluded and the restitution payments are not quarantined by minimum taxable incomes or other thresholds.
• The effect of any court order in relation to restitution liabilities must be retrospective to the date of the offence so that criminals who try to hive off assets (when caught) will have them seized to service the liability.
The implementation of this concept would be a major crime prevention initiative with criminals knowing that the liability for their behaviour will be there until the debt is settled, similar to Taxation liabilities.
The benefit to victims will be generally more symbolic, as some criminals will never make good on their debt, but many victims may benefit over time as the adage of, crime does not pay, becomes a reality for criminals.
White collar crime is an area where the greed of the offender (usually money) in effect becomes their penalty. It seems odd that the system incarcerates fraudsters and they can walk away unencumbered at the end of any sentence. The restitution liability would in many cases negate the need for incarceration and the criminal will be punished substantially by the thing that caused the offending, money. There is a pleasant irony that the motivator for their offending is the penalty they need to endure.
The bonus to all of us is that we do not have to pay for the incarceration.
Recidivist offenders would see their liability climb. That escalating debt may also act as a deterrent from further criminal activity knowing that at any time the tax office can seize any assets they accrue until the liability is expunged.
Using restitution as part of the legal consequences of offending will enable the Courts to substantially reduce the numbers of offenders in jail as the nonviolent that pose no physical threat to the community can make way in the prison system for more deserving cases.
At least if the matter is managed by the tax Office we can be assured of fiduciary competence as that office is equipped to manage the long game that this may end up being with career criminals.
That the restitution issue impacts on sentencing is problematic but the broader community would find it much easier to accept an apparent lenient court imposed sentence in the knowledge that the offender has a reasonable restitution liability to help the victim.
by CAA | Dec 28, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
28th December 2017
If a criminal makes a victim of one person (perhaps by stealing, or perhaps by killing) then the law and its appointed officials are supposed to ensure that justice is done for that victim – right? And that does sometimes happen. But too often it does not happen, and sometimes the law actually prevents that happening.
Sometimes the evidence against the offender is not allowed to be presented by laws made, not by Parliament, but by lawyers.
Here we will mention just one aspect of this absurdity. Under the Common Law which founded our rules of evidence which are relevant to a case (whether to the prosecution or the defence of an accused) could, and should, be put before the court. In more serious cases that means put before a jury. And it should make no difference as to how that evidence was obtained.
This led to certain injustices, particularly where some form of duress was used to obtain a “confession”. We can all agree that could not stand – if for no other reason than the very strong likelihood that any admission elicited by force would not be actually true, but merely given to stop the force continuing. Simple enough.
But then the lawyers took us down the path of the dreadful “Miranda” decisions born in the USA. Yes, that haven of technicalities and complexities was brought to Australia just like movies and coca-cola. Movies, literature and news media are replete with examples of the absurdities that followed in the US, and we shake our heads at how that was allowed to happen; how did our cousins get it so wrong?
Well, we did too. We followed them. More specifically, criminal lawyers persuaded our Courts to follow them. Judges make laws sometimes, when our Parliaments are – or remain – silent.
So now in Victoria, if evidence has been obtained improperly it will probably not be allowed to be put before a jury or court. If it was obtained illegally, as opposed to merely improperly, you can bet on it being disallowed. And all this applies to material that flows from an improper or illegal act (the “fruit of the poisonous tree” principle).
All very noble, you might think, but the consequences are often grossly ignoble. In one case the police obtained a warrant to install a listening device in an office and thereby obtained evidence of “businessmen” bribing taxation officials. The problem was – according to these judge-made laws – they got into the office by a subterfuge; that was reckoned to be improper. So the tape recordings of the offenders’ conversations was not allowed to be put forward.
(Do not bother to ask just how a listening device, or “bug” could otherwise have been installed the office – that is not the point here.)
Should the police have carte blanche to go anywhere to search for evidence? No, or course not. But is it right that when they – or any other witnesses for that matter – come across relevant evidence by accident, or while looking for something else without proper authority, or perhaps in ignorance of the laws, should be compelled to keep that relevant evidence from a jury/
For example, if an employee of a firm suspects criminal misconduct by the employers and takes a copy of the firm’s records that show this, should that be enough to let the criminals off? Many an honest employee is prepared to “blow the whistle” but the present laws seem to work against this.
If a constable comes across some people in a car and requires them to open the car boot (perhaps for no real reason other than a general feeling of suspicion or unease) and finds a dead body (or stolen property, if you like) shouldn’t he or she be allowed to tell a court about that?
If a burglar finds a murder victim in a house, while pursuing his own illegal trade, or even hears the murder being committed, would you not want a court to know about that when the murderer is being tried?
We do not suggest that anybody who acts illegally should get off scot free just because they happen to obtain evidence of a crime by a perpetrator, but it is not logical to allow the perpetrator to go scot free just because somebody else did something wrong. The present rules often let perpetrators go free to continue their depredations – to make further victims of us all.
The law should seek to protect us from offenders, and to protect any accused person against false evidence – and should doubtless protect any us against seriously abusive conduct committed against us (and that goes for those accused of crimes, too) but the approach of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as our courts now do, ultimately works against society.
It is certainly possible to frame laws that strike a balance between the seriousness, or wilfulness, of an action, and the seriousness and relevance of evidence that flows from it.
Proponents of the present absurdity will argue that it is necessary to prevent some people (probably police officers, but not necessarily) wilfully trespassing against the rights of others in order to gain evidence. Those proponents are commonly in the camp of criminal lawyers who themselves have much to gain from that argument, or Human Rights Lawyers who object purely because they can ,but put that aside for the moment.
It cannot be denied that there have been occasions when precisely such trespasses occurred – when suspects were mistreated in some way, quite deliberately, and quite outrageously. But note that we argue that such behaviour should not go unpunished – that usual deterrents should apply. We merely argue that another offender, or accused person, should not go unpunished merely because of misconduct by somebody else.
Are we really so incapable of distinguishing between the baby and the bath water? Do we really have to let crooks go free because of the sins of others? Do we really need to slavishly adopt the flawed lawyer-and-offender-friendly rules from another jurisdiction where it is routinely abused?
Why do we allow society, ourselves, to be victimised twice – once when an offender commits a crime and again when he/she escapes punishment because of some error by somebody else?
In this current environment the Government must now be heard on the Miranda debacle and clearly articulate how they propose to Legislate change.
by CAA | Dec 27, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
27th December 2017
Each hour of Community Service work given to Ahmed El Lababidi of Glenroy for bashing a policewomen is another reason for the judiciary to be placed on performance based contracts.
The Judiciary again has found a way to out manoeuvrer the Government (and the people) and circumvent the Law. The Magistrate runs the Court so the buck stops with him no excuses or blame shifting.
The contempt shown toward the Government (and us) in this case is beyond belief and is only exceeded by the contempt shown the victim.
So it goes to prove that the Judicial system can choose to ignore the Law.
You can bet that the Magistrate didn’t even award damages to pay for the dental work or the six weeks she was off work or the loss of confidence that the police member now suffers and may affect her ability to pursue her career in a manner she would have liked to.
With all that, the Office of Public Prosecutions is now considering an appeal that would not be necessary had the Magistrate done his job in the first place.
Might be a top idea to reinstate the charge of Assaulting an Emergency Worker and the other dropped charges and present the defendant to another Magistrate and not waste time on an appeal.
As it was reported that the other charges were dropped, not proceeded with, Victoria Police could reinstate and present the defendant on those matters to another Court and show some ticker and support for their member. They could also seek a Court Order for the damages and hit the offenders’ hip pocket.
He can then contemplate the way he intends to find the money while serving the mandatory six months for assaulting the Emergency Service Worker.
Be interesting to find out if this was a manoeuvre by the Courts which would avoid deportation if El Lababidi was at any risk of that sanction.
by barlet | Dec 18, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
18th December 2017
The recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal to ignore imposing the mandatory term of imprisonment on two offenders who violently assaulted a Paramedic highlights the need for a higher level of accountability for judicial officers.
The counter argument that there can always be an appeal against sentences imposed, or not imposed, is disingenuous as many considerations kerb that course of action, including the cost of a further appeal.
The real issue is the lack of real accountability of the judiciary. Judicial officials must reflect the sentencing regime of a democratically elected Parliament that sets parameters for available sentences.
Murder, where a convicted offender may receive a life sentence, rarely with more than a lenient minimum term to be served, is the only occasion where a maximum sentence is sometimes imposed. We challenge anyone to identify any other case in the past twenty five years in Victoria that attracted the maximum sentence, despite the often long criminal history of the offender. Courts consistently and persistently thumb their collective noses at Parliament’s wishes. How many convictions must an offender have before a maximum sentence is imposed?
How can this wonton disregard of our elected Parliaments be tolerated? This continued behaviour is a systemic abuse of the separation of powers and is contempt of our Parliament.
The path to a solution must be to make judicial officials at all levels of courts accountable for their actions. This can be achieved through a Judicial Committee established on bipartisan lines that would inter alia require that those presiding in courts do more to meet community expectations. Those officiating who do not should be called to account.
A necessary corollary is that the appointment of judicial officials must be by contract so that those who act as a law unto themselves can have their services terminated at the end of a contract period.
In the United States many judges are elected officials. If community standards are not met they are most unlikely to be re-elected. We do not advocate this for Victoria but greater accountability must be achieved if the general populace is to continue to respect our courts.
by CAA | Dec 1, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
1st of December 2017
The opening question asked by radio host Neil Mitchell when interviewing Assistant Commissioner Brett Guerin in response to his exposure as a serial troll by the CAA was, “Are you guilty?”.
Guerin’s response was, “Yes.”
Guerin’s trolling was not restricted to the CAA but had been occurring for a number of years under the alter ego of Guerin, Vernon Demerest.
With that announcement the future career of Guerin was sealed it would be untenable for him to command again and remain part of the Victoria Police executive.
His interview with Mitchell descended into a series of justifications liberally sprinkled with pleas that he was not trying to excuse his behaviour. Apologising to his family was fine. He ought to have thought to apologise to his victims and withdraw the disparaging remarks he made.
The only reason that Guerin was pleading his case is that he had been caught out and was making a ham-fisted attempt to minimise his culpability. Being stood down by the Chief Commissioner is not a ringing endorsement for this strategy.
It is a sad indictment on Police Command that one of their brethren just, doesn’t get it. The community has a reasonable expectation, as do rank and file members of the Police force, that the Commissioners voluntarily hold themselves to a higher standard. A philosophy that Guerin did not ascribe to, as was evident in his interview playing down the seriousness of his misbehaviour.
We question whether other senior police in the close knit senior ranks were aware of his trolling as it had been going on for years.
Those, if any, who knew but took no action are also culpable and it will only be a matter of time before exposure. Self- reporting may be their best option.
Like in all these things it has opened Pandora’s Box. People with allegations of misconduct in relation to the Police Executive and some senior Officers may be emboldened to come forward.
Repercussions of Guerin’s activity and ‘Guilty Plea’, will reverberate through the upper echelons of Victoria Police for some time to come yet.
The CAA is proud to have provided this service to Victoria by revealing this matter.
To all of our supporters including many serving and former police who have encouraged and congratulated the CAA on its work, thank you.
Ivan W Ray
Secretary
Community Advocacy Alliance.
by CAA | Nov 29, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
29th December 2017
Plea Bargaining is the trading down of offences committed by a perpetrator in return for a guilty plea. Guilty criminals reduce their sentence by having offences they committed whitewashed and, as an added bonus, because they were never convicted of these offences, should they reoffend not having those crimes ever used against them again. It is a system that benefits our worst and most violent criminals, the very ones we want removed from our community.
Allegedly these Plea bargaining deals are done in consultation with the Informant (the police member who charged the offender) and the victim, but in practice this process managed by Prosecutors and Defence Counsel operates perilously close to coercion in obtaining (if they do) any acquiesce from parties.
This process is very attractive to criminals that have been caught dead to rites; not only do their crimes get watered down and offences whitewashed but they get the bonus of the Court not hearing the magnitude of their offending, the anguish and suffering of the victim and attract an ‘early guilty plea’ sentence reduction as well.
A criminal who steals a car, burgles a house, sexually assaults one victim and shoots another the wounds nearly fatal, steals all the family valuables while high on an illicit drug is a prime candidate for a generous plea bargain. That the Police caught the offender in possession of the firearm in the stolen car with the family’s property and additionally a quantity of the drugs, you would think it would be a clear cut open and shut case that the perpetrator would be held to account for all these offences.
But this perpetrator can bargain for the majority of the offences being dropped, including the most serious, in return for a guilty plea to one or two lesser charges. Other offences not proceeded with are effectively expunged. There is something criminal about that.
This type of Plea bargain is argued as efficient jurisprudence as proceeding to trial with all the matters would not achieve a better result. What does ‘better result’ mean and for whom, the community may have a very different opinion to jurists.
While one of the objectives of our legal system is to rehabilitate offenders, we all know that in the majority of cases where offenders commit multiple offences rehabilitation is realistically a pipe dream, but the plea bargaining process paradoxically rewards bad behaviour of our worst and often most brutal criminals, how sensible is that?
It is the reoffending that highlights the absurdity of plea bargaining, which by the way is not legislated but a process introduced by lawyers, not our elected government, raising the question as to who is the main beneficiary of this process. I am tipping it is not the victims.
After fulfilling the penalty imposed in the scenario above the perpetrator re offends, as too often is the case, the offences that were whitewashed (not presented so no conviction)from the earlier trial cannot be presented to the court as a prior conviction. That means in a new trial for drug offences the perpetrators previous history of drug abuse and consequential behaviour cannot be put before the Court. The Court would reasonably treat the subsequent drug offence by this criminal differently had the Court known this was an habitual and brutal offender, whose previous offending involved drugs.
Another matter of substantial influence on Plea bargaining is a reluctance of prosecutors to run cases where there is a risk that costs may be awarded against the Crown or Police. Cost are never awarded against the defendant in criminal matters irrespective what costs are borne by the Crown by shenanigans of the defendants or their legal counsel.
There is no argument with costs being awarded against the Crown or Police if the prosecution is malicious in any way but to regularly, as a matter of course, award costs against the Crown or Police simply for a case to fail is a relatively new nuance in the history of jurisprudence and must be addressed by legislators as a matter of urgency.
Unwilling to proceed with cases based on the risk of costs, is yet another win for the career criminal and makes nobbling of witnesses by the criminals and or associates an advantageous endeavour.
If the main justification for this plea bargaining outbreak is cost, then the old adage of,’ Justice on the cheap is justice denied’, has certain resonance jurists should note.
The ridiculous growth of the practice of plea bargaining is now permeating in to how crime is recorded. In the first report from the Community Safety Trustee there was a proposal that the Government is seeking to change the recording of crime statistics to measure incidents rather than the current method which measures all the individual offences irrespective whether they are carried out by the same offender at the same time.
This new idea could mean that all offences that occurred in the Bourke Street Massacre, the multiple offences committed in a particularly egregious aggravated home invasion or the slaughter committed by Julian Knight would all be recorded as just three events or crimes.
Claims in the media by Police that the number of young offenders are decreasing but offenders were committing multiple offences, suggesting somehow this distorts the real figure and the impact of their offending. This hypothesis would be fine was it not for the inconvenience of there being victims, they can’t whitewash or plea bargain their suffering.
A cynic may conclude this new methodology is nothing more than a bit of goal post shifting because of the poor score in their present position. This cannot be allowed to happen.
Overlooked completely by the justice system in their efforts to rein in costs is the impact plea bargaining has on crooks. If they are involved in an ‘incident’ then committing more offences in the commission of that crime doesn’t matter and the deterrent effect of risking a harsher penalty evaporates because they know most of what they do will be plea bargained away, so what the hell.
The lack of prosecution and the soft option of Plea bargaining for offenders aggravated by the knock on effect for recidivists having their crimes purged for the future is a major contributor to the breakdown of Law and Order. Offenders getting free passes and multiple rewards from the legal system for bad conduct, (including their legal fees covered) is bizarre, so it is not surprising that criminality prospers at the expense of us all.
The huge costs of dispensing justice might be reined in if criminals were held to account discouraging them from their lawless ways rather than rewarding them for their bad behaviour.
The scales of justice need to be reset.
by CAA | Sep 10, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
10th September 2017
The laws removing a person’s right to drive are designed to improve compliance and reduce death and injury on our roads. This is a laudable and noble endeavour; however, when that noble cause also creates undesirable consequences, it should be reviewed.
There is no doubt that the strong penalties imposed on drivers who break road laws have a deterrent effect, particularly on young drivers, but the current sentencing (some mandatory) needs to be discussed and reviewed. Sentencing or penalties should be about correcting behaviour not about destroying lives and making things worse for our community.
The total removal of the right to drive can be a terrible penalty with many unintended consequences that do not always achieve the desired effect. If a penalty also means losing employment, this is very severe for a first offence and is counterproductive to the greater community good.
There will be an argument that the transgressors deserve what they get and they made bad choices and put others at risk – perhaps there is merit in that view, but when considering the overall impact of these penalties that they can be disproportionately unfair, particularly for first or young offenders. There needs to be a pragmatic review of the system. Destroying lives is not good Justice.
We are not talking about dangerous, serial or rogue recidivists. They do not deserve compassion.
There is a bias in imposing penalties against those who are employed in the non-professional sphere. Licence Suspensions and Disqualification coupled with fines (often and routinely higher than for property crime and crimes of violence) may utterly destroy those who need a driver’s licence for their job.
Taking away a person’s livelihood for relatively minor offences is cruel and unjust.
The first thing that happens to most trade-orientated defendants is their job is lost and hope of employment in their trade unlikely. Apprenticeships can be lost forever. Some professional people and workers in retail, health and hospitality can access their work by public transport but frequently a trade worker must be able to drive, not just to access their workplaces but to undertake their work. Mechanics who cannot test drive a car, or plumbers and carpenters who cannot carry their tools to work, are just some of a myriad of jobs that require a licence. We may, of course, add any employment where a driving licence is an employment condition.
Workers who lose their licences and their jobs lose the capacity to pay fines. Defaulting on penalties can lead to imprisonment. The loss of income also means that any loans un-serviced can result in foreclosure and the probable repossession of the goods, usually their car. This inevitably leads to the downgrading or loss of any form of credit rating. The multiplication effect of penalties does not take into account that the offender still has to live and the penalty is further magnified if the driver is on the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Insolvency and bankruptcy are sometimes inevitable.
In summary, penalties for low range traffic offences and first offenders are destroying lives.
It is incongruous that penalties regularly reported in the media for crimes of violence, drug and property offences (and even some high-range driving offences) seem to be proportionally and sometimes lighter than those imposed on drivers who are first-time offenders for low-range offences.
Poorly applied sentencing penalties will not lead to a reduction in offending, but an escalation as perpetrators convert to victims of the system. They can feel trapped and can see only the option of repeat offending, or resorting to habitual welfare, joining the unemployable.
A feeling of hopelessness and being trapped in the” Unintentional Cycle” pushes many to criminal activity and or drug abuse as an escape or an ill-advised path to a solution. The untold mental damage and perhaps self-destruction is bad enough for the individual but the impact on the community is underrated.
Low-level traffic offenders can go from net contributors to a net liability for the community through welfare.
Drivers need to be accountable for their non-compliance, but we need to review the removal of drivers’ licences to allow the courts to use diversions, conditional Suspensions and Disqualifications.
It seems odd that diversion is the preferred option for the courts in criminal matters, but they do not apply the same standards to traffic matters. The rationale should be identical.
To remove a licence conditionally by limiting hours of driving so that the defendant can continue to work, would seem to be a fairer outcome and the impact on their social life not unreasonable – though even that may be excessive for a first offender.
Why should we not offer Good Behaviour Bonds in traffic cases as is done in some other State jurisdictions?
Under the current system, we still have many recidivist traffic offenders. The current regime does not promote compliance to any higher degree than the alternative approach we recommend.
How many of the current crop of recidivist drivers lost their licence for their first offence and ended up in the “Unintentional Cycle”?
We call on the Government to bring about necessary changes to legislation to provide greater flexibility in sentencing for traffic offences in Victoria, making them at least comparative to the criminal sentencing practices.
Ivan W.Ray Hon. Secretary Community Advocacy Alliance.
by CAA | Aug 6, 2017 | Library, Police Veterans in Schools, Uncategorized
6th August 2017
“The Hub”, is a designated building designed to house several Police related Not for Profit organisations and critically to provide a purpose-built base for the operation of the Retired Police Peer Support Program.
The Retired Police Association (RPA) Peer Support Program (PSP) has only been operating for less than two years and has cobbled together sufficient funds to train up 41 Retired (PSP) staff who operate purely on a voluntary basis throughout Victoria and also cover their own and clients out of pocket expenses.
In this very short time frame, the group are looking after 400 ex-police varying in need from the company to serious mental health issues including depression, PTSD and addictions to gambling, drugs and alcohol.
The group are finding the same experience as the Department of Veterans Affairs where issues, particularly of PTSD, are manifesting later in life.
The CAA has recruited the recently Retired Deputy Commissioner of Veterans Affairs Mike O’Meara who has extensive experience in administering the Psych services of Defence to advise the CAA on the administration of these initiatives and to assist the RPA.
Based on world practises, we can assume that fifteen per cent of ex-members will need some assistance with mental health issues after they cease employment with VicPol.
This probably is replicated with other emergency services, particularly the Ambulance Service. To say that the RPA has seen but the tip of the iceberg is a statement made in fact. It is not unreasonable to warn the Government of a tsunami of mental health issues for ex-police that is not far away and the early intervention of a Peer Support Program may lessen the impact and cost when it arrives.
Funding is a pressing necessity with the program only having sufficient funds to see them through to mid-2017. Apart from the meagre funds of the RPA, the group have received funding from the Police Association to assist with training however the financial viability of the program for the long term must be addressed relatively urgently to allow the practitioners to get on with the job rather than worrying about funding. I am at a loss as to how PSP has been so successful to date given that they have achieved their success on such a minuscule budget and what they have achieved and is testament to the dedication and ingenuity of the Retired members running the program.
Of a much more pressing necessity is the establishment of ”The Hub” facility which ideally will provide suitable accommodation for the PSP operatives and their administrative support but also house Clinicians to back up the program and act as a referral for some of the more dire cases handled by the PSP.
One of the problems is the stigma either real or perceived that people suffering mental health issues experience.
To that end, we propose to establish a commercial coffee shop as the front door of the services. A space people needing help can attend without fear of stigma. I am important that the Coffee shop is a commercial venture catering for the public to assist with the anonymity of people to access the resources.
The PSP has identified the security of the PSP operatives as a major concern as they are not permitted to attend private dwellings and currently their only option is to meet at local coffee shops. This is proving unsatisfactory by not offering the clients some confidentiality but also by the lack of security should a client have an episode.
We have identified a surplus Government building on the corner of Coventry and StKilda Road, South Bank, adjacent to Victoria Barracks. The building has been vacant for many years and originally housed the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatients Psych Service.
We understand that the building has either been or is in the process of being transferred from the Commonwealth to the State ownership and we understand that part of the ownership process is a condition that the Veterans Art created as part of the rehabilitation within DVA has a permanent display gallery.
We have not inspected the building, but it is highly probable that the needs of the “The Hub” could co-exist with the Gallery. Until we have access to the building, we will not know the suitability.
The concept of “The Hub” requires the ability to develop a commercial coffee shop so location is important, good public transport and car access is essential and sufficient room to provide administration for RPA PSP, Blue Light Vic., CAA, Blue Ribbon, Police Legacy, Operation New Start, Police in Schools, Police Games Administration and clinical services to support RPA PSP.
We would be interested in accessing any alternate surplus Government Buildings preferably reasonably close to but not necessarily in the City.
Bringing all of these organisations together will have the bonus of improving their capacity to perform their various NFP functions and also add to the anonymity of ex-members going to the facility to seek help or undergo treatment.
It will also allow for easier access to these organisations by VicPol and the Government.
We would be pleased to discuss any options in relation to this initiative.
by CAA | Aug 6, 2017 | Library, PTSD, Uncategorized
6th August 2017
“The Hub”, is a designated building designed to house several Police related Not for Profit organisations and critically to provide a purpose-built base for the operation of the Retired Police Peer Support Program.
The Retired Police Association (RPA) Peer Support Program (PSP) has only been operating for less than two years and has cobbled together sufficient funds to train up 41 Retired (PSP) staff who operate purely on a voluntary basis throughout Victoria and also cover their own and clients out of pocket expenses.
In this very short time frame, the group are looking after 400 ex-police varying in need from the company to serious mental health issues including depression, PTSD and addictions to gambling, drugs and alcohol.
The group are finding the same experience as the Department of Veterans Affairs where issues, particularly of PTSD, are manifesting later in life.
The CAA has recruited the recently Retired Deputy Commissioner of Veterans Affairs Mike O’Meara who has extensive experience in administering the Psych services of Defence to advise the CAA on the administration of these initiatives and to assist the RPA.
Based on world practises, we can assume that fifteen per cent of ex-members will need some assistance with mental health issues after they cease employment with VicPol.
This probably is replicated with other emergency services, particularly the Ambulance Service. To say that the RPA has seen but the tip of the iceberg is a statement made in fact. It is not unreasonable to warn the Government of a tsunami of mental health issues for ex-police that is not far away and the early intervention of a Peer Support Program may lessen the impact and cost when it arrives.
Funding is a pressing necessity with the program only having sufficient funds to see them through to mid-2017. Apart from the meagre funds of the RPA, the group have received funding from the Police Association to assist with training however the financial viability of the program for the long term must be addressed relatively urgently to allow the practitioners to get on with the job rather than worrying about funding. I am at a loss as to how PSP has been so successful to date given that they have achieved their success on such a minuscule budget and what they have achieved and is a testament to the dedication and ingenuity of the Retired members running the program.
Of a much more pressing necessity is the establishment of ”The Hub” facility which ideally will provide suitable accommodation for the PSP operatives and their administrative support but also house Clinicians to back up the program and act as a referral for some of the more dire cases handled by the PSP.
One of the problems is the stigma either real or perceived that people suffering mental health issues experience.
To that end, we propose to establish a commercial coffee shop as the front door of the services. A space people needing help can attend without fear of stigma. I am important that the Coffee shop is a commercial venture catering for the public to assist with the anonymity of people to access the resources.
The PSP has identified the security of the PSP operatives as a major concern as they are not permitted to attend private dwellings and currently their only option is to meet at local coffee shops. This is proving unsatisfactory by not offering the clients some confidentiality but also by the lack of security should a client have an episode.
We have identified a surplus Government building on the corner of Coventry and StKilda Road, South Bank, adjacent to Victoria Barracks. The building has been vacant for many years and originally housed the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatients Psych Service.
We understand that the building has either been or is in the process of being transferred from the Commonwealth to the State ownership and we understand that part of the ownership process is a condition that the Veterans Art created as part of the rehabilitation within DVA has a permanent display gallery.
We have not inspected the building, but it is highly probable that the needs of the “The Hub” could co-exist with the Gallery. Until we have access to the building we will not know the suitability.
The concept of “The Hub” requires the ability to develop a commercial coffee shop so location is important, good public transport and car access is essential and sufficient room to provide administration for RPA PSP, Blue Light Vic., CAA, Blue Ribbon, Police Legacy, Operation New Start, Police in Schools, Police Games Administration and clinical services to support RPA PSP.
We would be interested in accessing any alternate surplus Government Buildings preferably reasonably close to but not necessarily in the City.
Bringing all of these organisations together will have the bonus of improving their capacity to perform their various NFP functions and also add to the anonymity of ex-members going to the facility to seek help or undergo treatment.
It will also allow for easier access to these organisations by VicPol and the Government.
We would be pleased to discuss any options in relation to this initiative.
by CAA | Jul 5, 2017 | Library, Uncategorized
5th July 2017
‘THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE.’
If a criminal makes a victim of one person (perhaps by stealing or killing) then the law and its appointed officials are supposed to ensure that justice is done for that victim – right? And that does sometimes happen. But too often it does not happen, and sometimes the law actually prevents that happening.
Sometimes the evidence against the offender is not allowed to be presented by laws made, not even by Parliament, but by lawyers.
Here is just one aspect of this absurdity; under the Common Law of England, which we inherited, evidence which was relevant to a case (whether to the prosecution or the defence of an accused) could, and should, be put before the court. In more serious cases that means put before a jury. And it made no difference how that evidence was obtained.
This led to certain injustices, particularly where some form of duress was used to obtain a “confession”. We can all agree that could not stand – if for no other reason than the very strong likelihood that any admission elicited by force may not be actually true, but merely given to stop the force continuing. Simple enough.
But then the lawyers took us down the path of the dreadful “fruit of the poisonous tree” decisions born in the USA. Yes, that haven of technicalities and complexities was brought to Australia just like movies and Coca-Cola.
Movies, literature and news media are replete with examples of the absurdities that followed in the US, and we shake our heads at how that was allowed to happen; how did our cousins get it so wrong?
Well, we did too. We followed them! More specifically, criminal lawyers persuaded our Courts to follow them. Judges make laws sometimes, when our Parliaments are – or remain – silent.
So now in Victoria, if evidence has been obtained improperly it will probably not be allowed to be put before a jury or court. If it was obtained illegally, as opposed to merely improperly, you can bet on it being disallowed. And all this applies to material that flows from an improper or illegal act (the “fruit of the poisonous tree” principle).
All very noble, you might think, but the consequences are often grossly ignoble. In one case police obtained a warrant to install a listening device in an office and thereby obtained evidence of “businessmen” bribing taxation officials. The problem – according to these judge-made laws – was that they got into the office by a subterfuge; that was reckoned to be improper. So the tape recordings of the offenders’ conversations was not allowed to be put forward.
(Do not bother to ask just how a listening device, or “bug” could otherwise have been installed in the office – that is not the point here.)
Should the police have carte blanche to go anywhere to search for evidence? No, or course not. But is it right that when they – or any other witnesses for that matter – come across relevant evidence by accident, or while looking for something else without proper authority, or perhaps in ignorance of the laws, should be compelled to keep that relevant evidence from a jury?
For example, if an employee of a firm suspects criminal misconduct by the employers and takes (steals) a copy of the firm’s records that show this, should that be enough to let the criminals off? Many an honest employee is prepared to “blow the whistle” but the present laws seem to work against this.
If a constable comes across some people in a car and requires them to open the car boot (perhaps for no real reason other than a general feeling of suspicion or unease) and finds a child’s dead body (or stolen property, if you like) shouldn’t he or she be allowed to tell a court about that?
If a burglar finds a murder victim in a house, while pursuing his own illegal trade, or even hears the murder being committed, would you not want a court to know about that when the murderer is being tried?
We do not suggest that anybody who acts illegally should get off scot free just because they happen to obtain evidence of a crime by a perpetrator, but it is not logical to allow the perpetrator to go scot free just because somebody else did something wrong. The present rules often let perpetrators go free to continue their depredations – to make further victims of us all.
The law should seek to protect us from offenders, and to protect any accused person against false evidence – and should doubtless protect any us from seriously abusive conduct committed against us (and to some extent that goes for those accused of crimes, too) but the approach of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as our courts now do, ultimately works against society.
It is certainly possible to frame laws that strike a balance between the seriousness, or wilfulness, of an action, and the seriousness and relevance of evidence that flows from it.
Proponents of the present absurdity will argue that it is necessary to prevent some people (probably police officers, but not necessarily) wilfully trespassing against the rights of others in order to gain evidence. Those proponents are commonly in the camp of criminal lawyers who themselves have much to personally gain from that argument, but put that aside for the moment.
And strangely, they do not argue that evidence unlawfully obtained that assists the defence should be excluded, but put that aside, too.
It cannot be denied that there have been occasions when precisely such trespasses occurred – when suspects were mistreated in some way, quite deliberately, and quite outrageously. But note that we argue that such behaviour should not go unpunished – that the usual deterrents should apply. We merely argue that another offender, or accused person, should not go unpunished merely because of misconduct by somebody else.
Are we really so incapable of distinguishing between the baby and the bath water? Do we really have to let crooks go free because of the sins of others? Do we really need to slavishly adopt the flawed lawyer-and-offender-friendly rules from another jurisdiction where it is routinely abused? Why is our Parliament silent when the same abuses are occurring here under laws made outside Parliament?
Why do we require society, ourselves, to be victimised twice – once when an offender commits a crime and again when he/she escapes punishment because of some error by somebody else?
Noel Newman APM NPSM
Retired Commissioner Queensland Police Retied Deputy Commissioner Victoria Police
Hon. Treasurer Community Advocacy Alliance.
